Excellent! This should present the right, and the left, with a superb opportunity for each to express their extreme righteous moral indignation, albeit each utilizing quite divergent rationalizations. And just in time for the midterm elections! What a perfect opportunity for everyone to practice divide and conquer politics. But who will lead the charge? Oh yes! What a terrific opportunity for the old draft dodger, porn star fornicator, pussy grabber to divide America even further, all for his own perceived personal gain. You can't make this stuff up.

That's exactly what I was thinking, why now. I don't know what the answer is but I am really, really tired of this. Trump is talking about shutting down the border, I am assuming he is talking about the ports of entry. That has only been done twice in recent history and only for short periods of time. Once right after 911. The other time was in the 1980's when a DEA agent was killed in Mexico.

I think the Democratic Senator, Sherrod Brown, is still safe. The Republicans aren't making a serious run against him this time. They tried the last time and fell short. This will certainly shave a few points from his lead though. The Congressional district with the close special election that stayed Republican will probably remain Republican in November because of this. The pictures and video from this is pretty bad. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings fired up the Trump base and this will add to it and keep it going.

Of course. A rich white sexual predator considered for an incredibly important job is "innocent until proven guilty", but poor people looking for a better life for themselves and their children are "hardened criminals". Do we have proof that they're hardened criminals? "Don't be a baby" says the President of the United States of America. Okey dokey, this is fine :/.

A rich white sexual predator considered for an incredibly important job is "innocent until proven guilty", but poor people looking for a better life for themselves and their children are "hardened criminals".

Click to expand...

Another question from a different part of the world: what parent would knowingly place their children into a rubber raft and set off on a journey across the Mediterranean Sea with the understand that they -- and their children -- may well die as a result of the journey? Answer: perhaps it is those parents whose life in their home country was thought to have a better chance of death than a rubber raft in the sea.

Looking at the border patrol numbers for August, the last published month, we had 37,544 total apprehensions, and 9016 "Inadmissables". So approx. 28,000 people being let in per month, almost 1000 per day, who get a court date, an ankle bracelet, and release into the U.S.

Comparatively then, this caravan represents about 5 days of "normal traffic" at the southern border. The optics just look a bit more spectacular than the day-to-day influx being scattered across miles and miles of border. If 5000 make it to the US border, then that day our border patrol will be swamped with over 6000 people showing up for processing.

Apparently, the smugglers are telling the Central Americans to show up with a child to have better odds against getting "inadmissible" status and being turned around.

Having a child with them will get them a court date and released. People without a child are detained until their court hearing. A large percentage are not given asylum but the courts are so bogged down it takes a long time to get a hearing. A lot of people don't realize that economic need is not a valid reason for asylum.

~ This is likely what the President will use to bring order to this repetitive abusive sham on the USA :
"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," the Supreme Court said in 1950. Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
For those so concerned - write a check and sponsor whomever you wish to enter the country. That option is always available.

For those so concerned - write a check and sponsor whomever you wish to enter the country. That option is always available.

Click to expand...

It isn't. From what I can find, you can only sponsor a relative or employee. You have to prove your relationship to the person. Not just write a check. Or I'm pretty sure a lot of charities would be doing that already.

> From what I can find, you can only sponsor a relative or employee. You have to prove your relationship to the person.

~ There is a way. A relative / Lawful Permanent Resident serves as the petitioner/sponsor, and another U.S. citizen ( you ) with sufficient income may co-sponsor the beneficiary. The first person provides the family relationship necessary to sponsor the beneficiary, and the second person merely becomes obligated to safeguard the U.S. from having to provide welfare, Food Stamps, etc. to the beneficiary for 10 years.

We're not supposed to talk about the costs involved, that means you are being cold and cruel.

We are talking about large groups of unskilled labor. The need for unskilled labor has been dropping for years. Yes people can be trained but there are waiting lists for a lot of that training and it isn't free. It isn't just displaced workers many young people are opting for job training because the debt incurred is a fraction of the debt incurred for a degree. What manufacturing there is left in this country is not unskilled labor. The vast majority of the jobs at the Honda plant just outside of Columbus requires a two year degree because it requires knowledge of robotics. The community college here tailored a two year degree to manufacturing.

How many wealthy homes require people to clean their home, take care of the children and cut their grass? How much produce needs picked, which is very much seasonal work? How many jobs are there in meat packing plants and dairies especially when per capita meat and dairy consumption has been dropping for some time now?

We are talking about large groups of unskilled labor. The need for unskilled labor has been dropping for years.

Click to expand...

I think the majority end up in Texas and California. Texas, at least, is booming with 1000 legal US citizens moving here every day for jobs, from unskilled to highly-skilled. (California is booming for "free stuff" seekers.)

To your point, though, a significant percentage of the Hispanic labor pool here are Mexican citizens or Mexican nationals working on legal temporary work visas. They won't be happy, or probably allow, a bunch of Central American "newbies" attempting to push them out of their work. The Mexicans tend to have deep roots in the state, and well-established relationships with Texas businesses in the building trades, agriculture, and other areas requiring physical labor.

To that end, these daily hundreds/thousands of Central American immigrants, are unlikely to find jobs and will be a burden on our welfare system.

In the last hour, Trump is tweeting about the caravan. He says he has alerted border patrol and the military that this is a "National Emergency", and that he will begin cutting foreign aid funding to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

To that end, these daily hundreds/thousands of Central American immigrants, are unlikely to find jobs and will be a burden on our welfare system.

Click to expand...

Well there you go again.

In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, or “IIRIRA,” Congress legislated that not only would undocumented immigrants not receive welfare, but legal immigrants wouldn’t get benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or money for child assistance until they’ve lived here at least five years and even seven years after their arrival.

So why does our President continue to make statements such as these?...

“Those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years.”

“We also believe that those seeking to immigrate into our country should be able to support themselves financially and should not be able to use welfare for themselves or the household for a period of at least five years”

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare and protects U.S. workers from being displaced. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”​